Robert Jenrick says Reform will put the Navy in the Channel to stop small boats (Image: PA)

Net-migration – the total number of people coming here minus those leaving – has now fallen to 204,000, although this number is still historically high.

Speaking about Reform’s migration policy, Mr Jenrick said: “Well, legal migration. We’ve been very clear, we’re going to have a legally binding cap.

He promised that Reform would be robust in stopping the boats, insisting it i s the only party that can do so.

“And so there are going to be deportations on a very big scale.

“And you should be prepared that if you don’t have the right to live here, you should either leave before there is a Reform government or you are going to be deported from this country, I think that’s perfectly fair.”

On small boats, Mr Jenrick said Reform would “do what’s necessary”.

“That means scrapping the ECHR, the outdated human rights laws, bringing those back to our own parliament, ensuring that this merry go round of legal appeals comes to an end. “You’ll be detained. You’ll be deported back home to your own country or to a third country. “And frankly, if you need to do more than that, you know, put the Navy in the channel, whatever it might be, we’ll do it.

“It’s inconceivable that a Reform government won’t stop the boats. That is the single most important thing the government has to do.

Small boat crossings have surged since Labour came to power 18 months ago.

The former Tory frontbencher said he would establish a new borders department that would be tasked with taking radical steps to stop small boat crossings.

These plans include successful asylum applicants having only temporary leave to remain before a review after two and a half years.

Human rights laws will be reformed so family members of asylum seekers are limited to parents and children.

And judges will be told to prioritise public safety and immigration control over a claimant’s human rights.

Robert Jenrick Reveals Reform’s Bombshell Plan for Stopping Migration

Robert Jenrick has placed immigration at the centre of Reform UK’s political programme, setting out a series of measures aimed at reducing migration, tightening the conditions under which foreign nationals can remain in Britain, and increasing the number of people removed from the country.

The proposals represent a significant expansion of Reform UK’s existing immigration agenda. They include the abolition of indefinite leave to remain, tougher visa requirements, restrictions on benefits for foreign nationals, a new deportation command and measures designed to discourage employers from relying on overseas workers.

Reform describes its overall objective as achieving “net negative immigration”, meaning that more people would leave the UK than enter it over time. The party says its approach is intended to reduce pressure on public services and end what it describes as dependence on low-skilled overseas labour.

Abolishing indefinite leave to remain

One of the most significant elements of the Reform programme is the proposal to abolish indefinite leave to remain, commonly known as ILR.

ILR currently provides eligible migrants with the right to remain permanently in Britain without needing to renew a temporary visa. Reform says it would replace this system with renewable five-year visas and introduce stricter requirements relating to salary, English-language ability and character.

The party also says existing awards of ILR would be rescinded under its proposals. This would represent a major change for migrants who currently have permanent residence rights.

The issue became particularly contentious in May when Jenrick was questioned about how the policy would work in practice. He said legally resident foreign nationals could be required to continue meeting economic criteria if ILR were abolished. People unable to satisfy the requirements could eventually lose their right to remain.

The distinction between people living in Britain legally and those who entered the country illegally is therefore important. Reform’s programme contains separate measures addressing the two groups, although its broader immigration strategy would affect both.

A five-year deportation programme

For people classified by the party as illegal migrants, Reform has proposed a much more extensive removal programme.

Its published policy says the party would introduce a five-year emergency programme to identify, detain and deport illegal migrants currently in the UK. It also proposes establishing a dedicated UK Deportation Command and rapidly expanding detention capacity.

The party says it would negotiate return agreements with countries whose nationals are being removed and could impose visa sanctions on governments that refuse to accept their citizens. It also proposes chartering up to five deportation flights a day.

Earlier in 2026, Reuters reported that Reform had proposed an agency modelled in part on the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement system, alongside legislation designed to facilitate large-scale removals.

The scale of the proposal has prompted questions about its legal, administrative and financial implications. Implementation would involve negotiations with other governments as well as decisions concerning detention, judicial review, asylum claims and existing immigration rights.

The social housing dispute

Jenrick’s position also became the subject of an internal disagreement within Reform.

During a Sky News interview in May, he was asked whether a foreign national legally resident in Britain who lived in social housing would automatically be deported under a Reform government.

Jenrick said social housing alone would not necessarily trigger removal. Instead, he linked continued residence to employment and income requirements, explaining that without ILR migrants would need to continue qualifying for permission to stay.

However, Zia Yusuf, Reform’s home affairs spokesperson, publicly rejected this interpretation. Yusuf said Jenrick’s answer was not Reform policy and argued that a foreign national living in social housing at taxpayers’ expense would automatically fail the party’s proposed economic test.

The disagreement highlighted a broader question surrounding Reform’s immigration programme: whether its proposed restrictions would apply only to people who fail particular immigration or economic criteria, or whether some categories of foreign nationals would automatically lose their right to remain.

It also demonstrated that the detailed implementation of Reform’s proposals remains an area of active political discussion.

Restricting access to benefits

Jenrick has also linked immigration policy to Reform’s plans for the welfare system.

In August, he announced proposals under which foreign nationals would lose access to a wide range of benefits. The party said only British citizens would generally be entitled to benefits, with limited exceptions.

The proposed restrictions would cover areas including Universal Credit, Jobseeker’s Allowance, Child Benefit, Housing Benefit, Pension Credit, free childcare and some disability benefits. Reform estimated that its proposals could save approximately £21 billion a year by 2029 if implemented.

The Guardian reported that the wider package included proposals affecting foreign-born households and estimated that the measures relating to foreign nationals could account for approximately £21 billion of the party’s proposed welfare savings.

The proposals would have particular implications for EU citizens with settled status. Reform has acknowledged that implementing such measures could require negotiations with the European Union because rights secured under the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement currently provide protections for eligible EU citizens living in Britain.

Jenrick has said Reform would be prepared to seek changes to the existing arrangements.

Increasing the cost of employing overseas workers

Another part of Jenrick’s approach focuses on employers.

In June, Reform announced what it called a “migrants labour levy”. Under the proposal, employers hiring non-UK nationals would face higher National Insurance costs as well as an additional annual charge.

The Guardian reported that Jenrick suggested the combined burden could amount to thousands of pounds a year for workers on lower salaries. The party’s stated objective is to make overseas recruitment less attractive and encourage businesses to employ British workers instead.

This is consistent with Reform’s wider argument that Britain has relied too heavily on foreign labour.

Supporters of the approach argue that raising the cost of migrant labour could encourage investment in domestic recruitment, training and productivity. Critics have raised questions about the effect on sectors that currently rely heavily on international workers and about whether businesses would simply pass additional costs on to consumers.

These are questions that would depend heavily on the final design of the policy and the response of employers.

Reform’s wider migration strategy

Taken together, the proposals form a broad immigration strategy rather than a single measure.

Reform says it wants to reduce both legal and illegal migration. Its programme combines stricter visa requirements, changes to permanent residence, restrictions on benefits, higher costs for employing foreign nationals and large-scale deportation of illegal migrants.

The party also proposes intercepting migrant boats crossing the English Channel under a programme called Operation Fortress. Under its published plan, the Royal Navy and relevant civilian authorities would intercept boats and return people to France or Belgium under escort.

Another proposal would impose criminal liability on company executives who knowingly employ illegal migrants.

The overall strategy therefore attempts to address several stages of migration simultaneously: entry, employment, access to public funds, long-term residence and removal.

Questions over implementation

The central issue surrounding Jenrick’s proposals is not simply whether Reform wants lower migration. The party has made that objective clear. The more complicated question is how such policies could operate within Britain’s existing legal and international framework.

Changes to settled status could affect people who have lived in Britain for many years. Restrictions on benefits could affect households that are already legally resident. Deportation measures would require cooperation from foreign governments and would have to operate alongside Britain’s legal obligations.

The potential economic effects are also contested.

Reform argues that reducing migration would lower pressure on public services and reduce welfare expenditure. Other analysts have warned that removing large numbers of workers could create labour shortages or increase costs in sectors dependent on overseas recruitment. These competing claims depend on assumptions about the number of people affected, how quickly policies could be introduced and how businesses and workers responded.

Jenrick’s role inside Reform

Jenrick’s prominence is significant because he entered Reform after serving as a senior Conservative politician and immigration minister. He has since taken responsibility for major economic and fiscal announcements within Nigel Farage’s party.

His role has given Reform’s immigration proposals a figure with direct experience of government policy and the Conservative administration’s attempts to reduce migration.

At the same time, the public disagreement with Yusuf demonstrated that Reform’s senior figures have not always presented identical interpretations of individual immigration measures. The May dispute did not establish that the party had abandoned its wider deportation policy; rather, it exposed disagreement over how specific provisions should be applied.

What happens next?

Reform UK’s immigration programme has now developed into one of the most extensive parts of its political platform.

Jenrick’s proposals focus particularly on the economic dimensions of migration: employment, wages, benefits, taxation and access to public funds. Other Reform figures have emphasised enforcement and deportation.

The combination means that any future attempt to implement the programme would involve changes across immigration law, welfare policy, employment regulation and Britain’s relationships with other countries.

For now, the proposals remain Reform UK policy commitments rather than implemented government measures. Their eventual impact would depend on parliamentary approval, legal challenges, negotiations with other governments and the practical capacity of the state to carry them out.

What Jenrick has revealed, however, is clear in broad terms: Reform intends to pursue a substantially different approach to migration, combining tighter entry requirements with changes to permanent residence, welfare eligibility, employment incentives and the removal of people who do not have permission to remain.

The debate over those proposals is therefore likely to continue well beyond the announcement itself, particularly over how far Britain can change its immigration system while balancing economic requirements, existing legal rights and international obligations.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.